Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well for auth: it names the 401 on missing login and code=40003 with data.bindUrl for unbound cloud-market instances. It also explains the conditional linkage behavior (empty welfareId = unredeemed, non-empty = joins welfare and order), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It omits read-only framing and pagination behavior for the limit parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the login requirement and the core action in two short blocks with no filler prose. The '本体: card → Action: list' ontology line adds little for an agent but costs only a few tokens.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Auth failure modes and the welfare linkage are well covered, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out. But for a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving limit undocumented and referencing a nonexistent welfareId parameter is a meaningful gap an agent would trip over.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: cardId is explained as 卡号. Worse, the description discusses welfareId, which is not in the input schema at all, while the actual second parameter (limit) is never mentioned. This is actively confusing rather than merely incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: look up the card secret (卡密) and redemption/usage status by card number. That is clearly distinct from the sibling set of welfare/order/contact tools. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for the linked welfare/order data it mentions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The '[需要登录]' prefix and the auth paragraph make the prerequisite clear, so an agent knows not to call it unauthenticated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over welfare_detail, welfare_list, or order_list, even though the description implies it joins those domains.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.